A comparative analysis on Weibo and Twitter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weibo is the Twitter counterpart in China that has attracted hundreds of millions of users. We crawled an almost complete Weibo user network that contains 222 million users and 27 billion links in 2013. This paper analyzes the structural properties of this network, and compares it with a Twitter user network. The topological properties we studied include the degree distributions, connected components, distance distributions, reciprocity, clustering coefficient, PageRank centrality, and degree assortativity. We find that Weibo users have a higher diversity index, higher Gini index, but a lower reciprocity and clustering coefficient for most of the nodes. A surprising observation is that the reciprocity of Weibo is only about a quarter of the reciprocity of the Twitter user network. We also show that Weibo adoption rate correlates with economic development positively, and Weibo network can be used to quantify the connections between provinces and regions in China. In particular, point-wise mutual information is shown to be accurate in quantifying the strength of connections. We developed an interactive analyzing software framework for this study, and released the data and code online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it